How could they have gotten the bomb across the Atlantic? Germany didn't have aircraft carriers. Their planes couldn't have flown across the Atlantic and back on one tank. The question is moot. They didn't have the means. American soldiers didn't want war. The Jews that live in America wanted war. Hitler wanted peace with France and England. Why would he have dropped a nuke on America?

In all honesty If he could of I think he would of. Esp if he was going down for the count.

Droping the bomb on such places was a bit harsh but I think in taking those live's , many many more where saved. Think if America didn't drop the bomb in city's, japan might have still continued to fight on . Then you would have had the war continuing on for go knows how many years taking god knows how many more life's .

In my honest opinion about nukes , man should have never messed with such a power . Since we have this power now , i think its only fair everyone has one . As everyone knows the damage they can cause so no one will want to go to war if that kind of damage can be done. Just my 2p

As far as Hitler's declaration of war against the U.S. is concerned, the Hitler speech on that theme that has been reproduced here shows many of the reasons why Germany declared war on the U.S. It should also be added that Hitler wanted to make sure that Japan would not change its mind and pull out of the war too early. Why? Germany started the war with a navy that was relatively weak, while Japan's navy was perhaps the strongest in the world. The German navy didn't have a single aircraft carrier. What was supposed to be the Reich's first carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, was, in fact, never completed. The Japanese navy, on the other hand, had several carriers. When the U.S. entered the war in 1941, they had no army or airforce of significance. Only in 1943 would the U.S. have developed those forces to effectiveness. This last fact is important because the date was leaked by two American newspapers on Dec. 4th of 1941. Hitler assumed that by that time the Soviet Union would have been defeated. And, taking into account the scale of the defeats inflicted on the Red Army by the end of 1941, that was not an irrational assessment. Thus, Hitler needed to make sure the U.S. navy would be stuck in the Pacific for as long as possible.

Finally, it seems that not many historians have bothered to take into consideration the fact that the main reason why atomic bombs were taken into consideration at all with respect to ending the war with Japan, and thus preventing the need to launch a massive invasion of Japan, was the U.S.'s lunatic concept of holding on to the idol of their unconditional surrender policy. By May of 1945, after Germany had surrendered, there was no real need to maintain the policy of unconditional surrender, which was controversial even before this date. This merely extended the war and led to more Japanese and Allied casualties. In fact, if the unconditional surrender policy had been dropped in May and the Japanese extremists had still had their way and the war continued anyway, then there really wouldn't be any moral controversy over Hiroshima outside of Japan. The blame would then reside solely with the Japanese for failing to accept the kindness of a desire for negotiations on the part of the Allies.

Also, it must not be forgotten that more Japanese civilians died as a result of conventional terror bombing than from the nuclear bombs.

It exists and is a major population centre. Entirely apart from the people living in it, it's a hugely important city in terms of business and finance, and is home to places like the British Museum. If the city was destroyed tomorrow, we'd lose centuries of irreplacable historical artifacts and knowledge.

Hiroshima exists and is a major population center. And what's more irreplaceable, our race or the artifacts that we have created? As long our genetics survive, history can be replaced.

In a World War, you hit the enemy as hard as you can. You keep doing it until you are either defeated or defeat your enemy. People let their natural sympathies and loyalties get in the way and they end up judging military actions after the event, but it is a nonsense. How would it work in wartime, have the generals conferring, ''well, if we send 500 bombers against the rail junction that would be proportionate, but if we send 600 bombers it would be excessive''

It's an obvious nonsense, you can't possibly take military decisions on such a basis. Hitler knew that.

As for Dunkirk, Hitler was afraid that his panzers would be vunerable attacking the British in the marshy country, crisscrossed by canals around Dunkirk and Goering promised him most faithfully that the BEF could be destroyed by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe did attack in a most determined and powerful manner, but, as so often, Goering let Hitler down by promising more than he could deliver. I think it is a myth that Hitler 'allowed' the BEF to escape, after all, how could giving Churchill a lifeline be considered a way of encouraging him to make peace when it could only strengthen his position?